BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2101 (Gordon) - Sanctions: jurors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2101 would establish a five-year pilot project
authorizing a judicial officer of a participating court, as
specified, to impose reasonable monetary sanctions of up to
$1,500 on an impaneled juror for any knowing violation of a
lawful court order, as specified. This bill would require the
Judicial Council to conduct an evaluation of the pilot project
and report the results of the pilot to the Governor and the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2021. The report shall also
examine whether the imposition of sanctions affects the number
of prospective jurors who report for jury duty.
Fiscal
Impact:
Pilot courts : Potential minor administrative costs to
administer the monetary sanction policy. Potential future cost
savings (General Fund*) to the participating courts to the
extent courts impose monetary sanctions in lieu of initiating
actions against jurors through civil contempt proceedings.
Pilot project evaluation : One-time costs to the Judicial
Council potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund*) to
AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 1 of
?
solicit program participants, collect pilot project data,
evaluate the pilot project, and report to the Legislature and
the Governor, including an evaluation of whether the
imposition of sanctions affects the number of prospective
jurors who report for jury duty. As the bill does not
effectively limit the number of courts or the number of
counties participating in the pilot, the workload required to
evaluate the "pilot" project could vary widely.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing law provides, generally, that a judicial officer has
the power to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed
$1,500, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful
court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial
justification. For these purposes, "person" includes a witness,
a party, a party's attorney, or both. Existing law provides that
such sanctions shall not be imposed except on notice contained
in a party's moving or responding papers; or on the court's own
motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order
imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in
detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order. (Code
of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 177.5.)
Notwithstanding the judicial officer authority to impose
monetary sanctions for violations of a lawful court order by a
person, the definition of "person" under existing law does not
include an impaneled juror.
Juror misconduct constitutes numerous activities that take place
during a trial, including but not limited to discussing a case
with other jurors, talking with members of either party of a
case, researching evidence outside of the court, and utilizing
social media to discuss the case. Under existing law,
accountability for juror misconduct may be addressed by holding
the juror in civil contempt of the court.
With respect to juror misconduct, existing law provides the
following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or
proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the
court:
Willful disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment
AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 2 of
?
related to the prohibition on any form of communication or
research about the case, including all forms of electronic
or wireless communication or research.
When summoned as a juror in a court, neglecting to
attend or serve as a juror, or improperly conversing with a
party to an action to be tried at the court, or with any
other person, in relation to the merits of the action, or
receiving a communication from a party or other person in
respect to the action, without immediately disclosing the
communication to the court. (CCP § 1209 (a)(6), (a)(11).)
Under existing law, the court or judge determines whether the
person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and
if it be adjudged that he or she is guilty of the contempt, a
fine may be imposed on him or her not exceeding $1,000, payable
to the court, or he or she may be imprisoned not exceeding five
days, or both. (CCP § 1218 (a).)
Proposed
Law: This bill would authorize a judicial officer of a court in
a pilot established pursuant to this section to impose
reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, payable to
the court, on an impaneled juror for any knowing violation of a
lawful court order, done without good cause or substantial
justification, that is supported by clear and convincing
evidence. This bill:
Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2017, to
solicit the participation of a representative sample of
courts, taking into account size, geography, and other factors
identified by the Council, for participation in a pilot
project to evaluate the effectiveness of this bill. This bill
would specify that it applies only to those courts
participating in the pilot project.
Provides that sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this
section except on notice contained in a party's moving or
responding papers, or on the court's own motion, after notice
and an opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions
shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or
circumstances justifying the order.
Requires the Judicial Council to conduct an evaluation of the
AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 3 of
?
pilot project and report the results of the pilot project to
the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2021.
The report shall also examine whether the imposition of
sanctions affects the number of prospective jurors who report
for jury duty.
Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2022.
Prior
Legislation: AB 2683 (Cooley) Chapter 99/2014 deleted the Penal
Code provision that made it a criminal contempt of court (a
misdemeanor) for a juror to willfully disobey a court
admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of
communication or research about the case, including all forms of
electronic or wireless communication or research.
AB 141 (Fuentes) Chapter 181/2011 made the willful disobedience
by a juror of a court admonishment related to the prohibition on
any form of communication or research about the case, including
all forms of electronic or wireless communication or research,
punishable as either a civil or criminal contempt of court
pursuant to those provisions.
AB 2217 (Fuentes) 2010 was substantially similar to AB 141. This
bill was vetoed by the Governor will the following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2217 without my signature. This
bill would require courts to provide specific admonishments to
jurors about communication through electronic and wireless
devices. This bill is unnecessary. Existing law already
sufficiently deals with communications among jurors. Moreover,
this type of admonishment is better handled through court rules
rather than by statute.
Recommended
Amendments: To limit the size of the pilot project and the
AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 4 of
?
potential workload to the Judicial Council to evaluate the
project, the author may wish to consider an amendment to limit
the number of pilot counties or more clearly specify the
representative sample of courts eligible to participate in the
pilot project.
-- END --